Today’s interview, from Raymond Arroyo’s World Over Live, is a great indication on where the center of gravity is now moving within the ranks of the knowledgable Catholic faithful.

The interview was with author and apologist Robert Royal and canon lawyer and priest Gerald Murray. I think it’s fair to say that all (including Arroyo) were highly critical of Francis and the recent direction of his pontificate in the wake of Amoris Laetitia.

Among other things they addressed the report – now confirmed by many sources – that the Pope ordered the firings of three faithful “un-mutual” priests from important positions and then belligerently exclaimed that, as Pope, he didn’t have to explain himself to anyone.

Hence the jab about corporate America.

The three were somewhat restrained and “respectful” – they didn’t claim Francis was a heretic or the forerunner to the Anti-Christ, etc. – but the overall negative sentiments were obvious. And I suspect all three may be less restrained in private.

Schism is coming. And more and more fence sitters are taking sides in their own way.

And no, I don’t want schism. No true Catholic would. Francis recently privately admitted that he may be the cause of it. But everyone will have to answer to God for the part that he played.

Everyone.

C.S. Lewis once had a character say in That Hideous Strength:

If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.

Obviously Lewis didn’t have the early 21st century crisis (stemming from the late 20th century crisis) of the Catholic Church in mind, exactly. But the point is still apt.

There is no refuge. More and more, to exhibit even “apparent neutrality” is to take a side.

Lol, when the conciliar church, and its modernist leaders, start getting questioned by its most ardent Kool-Aid drinking apologist neo-Catholics like Arroyo, Robert Royal etc. you know there’s trouble in Neo-Catholic land.
These people (the neo-Catholics) IMO are just as guilty for the mess the Church has been in as are the modernist popes, bishops and priests of the last 60 years.
For years they’ve defended these people, their actions and the rot that came out of Vatican II like the good little useful idiots that they are!

From a holy but extreme example, St. Gerard Majella was unjustly accused of sin, and St. Alphonsus had no choice but to discipline him and prevent him from receiving the Eucharist. St. Gerard remained silent–he could have rightly presented his side–and did not complain.

OK, we’re not St. Gerard. But the pope, for good or bad, has the immediate jurisdiction to remove any priest. The priests may appeal, but if they carp about it, they’ll sin. We, then, should be careful how we discuss it.

As for the pope’s words and teachings, we must speak out for the good of souls.

I submit that we need to draw a distinction when making comparisons to the behavior of the saints, and recommendations for emulations.
The distinction regards the private good vs. the public good.
St. Gerard chose to remain silent about a matter that concerned him personally. No one else was going to be harmed by him taking an unjust cross upon himself. It didn’t matter to anyone but Gerard if those who were unjustly judging him were not exposed.
The pope’s failures, however, are doing huge damage to the entire Church. He absolutely MUST be exposed and stopped.
Sure, we ought to resist in a way respectful of the Petrine office: Cardinal Bourke style, if you will.
IMPO, however, (and as you may imagine) I think nice is nasty. As long as we keep respect for the office front and center, we should NOT respect *persons* who occupy the offices. Personal respect is something that you *merit* by a virtuous life and actions. To give respect where respect is not due is an injustice. Moreover, when you treat nicely people who don’t deserve it, they don’t listen.
Find a parent who has proven his worth as such, by actually having raised a number of good children. Then ask him if he always uses the carrot, and never the stick.
Original sin is real. The carrot alone rarely does the job. In fact it most often backfires and produces what we call a spoiled brat…kind of like what Pope Francis seems to be.

If these are the greatest thinkers of the neo-Catholic world, they’re in more trouble than what they’ll ever know. The traditional Papal model of governance is monarchical. Hello? So the best critique they have to offer is that Francis should stop acting like corporate America? Get a clue, Gentlemen.

Had any of the post-conciliar Popes moved as decisively as Francis to eradicate opposition to the perennial teachings and disciplines of the Church and to protect Her from Her enemies, we wouldn’t have been sitting here with the fruit of 50 years of Revolution.

The Pope who will be the Restorationist will need to move as ruthlessly, decisively and comprehensively as has Francis. The exercise of authority isn’t the problem. The problem is what the exercise of authority is accomplishing: the work of Our Lord or the work of the Evil One.